A fellow atheist requesting debate assistance on another forum.
Posted on: October 17, 2007 - 2:38pm
Offline
A fellow atheist requesting debate assistance on another forum.
So there's this forum I frequent and there's been a thread started with the topic of the Blasphemy challenge. Unfortunately I'm the only one debating this one theist and that's where you gals and guys come in.
If anyone's lookin' to rip into this guy (I already have a bit, but unfortunately am not that good at it) then head on over PLEASE.
the link the the specific thread in hot debate now.
“It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere.” - Voltaire
- Login to post comments
I looked at the thread and um if the pages following the first two continue the fallacy/page ratio then i can't read anymore. by the way on a quick look it seems about 2/page.
Crike. I wouldn't know where to start. There's a level of stupidity that I can't even comprehend well enough to know how to address it.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I agree. I don't recall the last time I saw so many ad hominen attacks and false dichotomies in such a small space.
You can't rationally argue out something that was not rationally argued in.
Indeed hamby i can "see" how they are wrong but how to explain such easy things that to me are just almost self-evidently fallacious is beyond me.
I mean the whole argument about the anthropic principle for example. The use of probablity to show that the universe is unliky to come about "by random chance", so um what is the probablity of a being far far more complex then the universe coming into existence and/or existing forever is what exactly? some how smaller then the universe doing the same?
or there is the above um i don't know the word for it, but think that one has no reason NOT to hurt us and therefore he sentences anyone who happens to not believe in him to eternal hellfire just because we "sinned" is to me horribly wrong.
Also specifically how is god being "supremely important" take away from him being an egotistical sadistic bastard?
ok no more looking at that site , its rotting my brain
edit: fixed some grammer and spelling
P1 Egotism implies an excess of self-importance;
Um.. ok...
P2 God is supremely important and
Define "God" coherently.
Define "Supremely important."
C1 therefore cannot have an excess of self-importance.
This conclusion cannot be drawn. We have undefined or incoherent terms in P2.
P3 sadism implies hurting people for no good reason.
There is a good reason for hurting people -- for the sadist. It makes them feel good to do it.
"Good" can only be defined in terms of something else. In this context, it is not given a referent, and is incoherent.
P4 the entire human race is composed of sinners
Unsupported premise.
"Sinner" has not been properly defined because "god" has not been properly defined, and sin cannot be "good" or "bad" without a referent. This referent (god) is incoherent. Therefore, "sinner" is incoherent.
C2 there's no reason for Him not to hurt us
Unsupported premise. He has not been defined, so we cannot say anything about reasons which he has, whatever he may be.
There. That's all the picking apart I'm going to do, because they're all stupid and it's not even fun.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Um, I'm in a discussion that has plenty:
http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=79161
http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=79257
http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=79423
:D
Just letting you know that I feel your pain.
Thanks all, and thanks especially hambydammit.
I read some of those thread and they all seem to be commiting ad consequitum fallacies. You should really point this out to them i think.